Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

Harpreeet Singh Brar, J

CM-13838-CWP-2025

The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for plaacing on record the short reply onn behalf of respondent No.5.

In view of the grounds mentionned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just excceptions.

Short reply on behalf of responndent No.5 is ordered to be taken on record.

Main

The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of thhe Constitutionn of India for issuance of a wrrit in the nature of certiorari foor quashing thhe impugned action of the respoondent-authorities in withholding the amountt of GPF and not granting the benefit of pension, withouut assigning any reason and further in not callculating the service rendered on daily wages basis towards pension in view of letter dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Finance Department to Govt. of Haryanaa. Further praying for issuance of a writ in thhe nature of mandamus directing the responddent-authorities to release the ammount of GPF along with interesst at the rate of 18% per annum in view of the instructions dated 20.02.2002 issued by Govt. of Haryana and further direecting the respondents to sanction the pension after calculating the service rendered on daily wage basis in view of lettter (Annexure P-5) and to graant the benefit of increment on account of qualifying the Fire Fighting Course as one similarly situated employee has already been granted the similar benefit along with all consequentiial benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that thhe petitioner retired from the service on 31.10.2015. The gratuity, leavve encashmentt was released without any delay however provident fund amounting to Rs.1,26,050/- was released onn 18.05.2017 whereas pensionary contributionn amounting to Rs.1,12,004/- reeleased on 09.09.2016. As suchh, the delay inn releasing all retiral dues of husband of petitioner entitles the petitioner foor grant of interest on delayed payment in terms of the judgmennt rendered byy a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineeer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343. Learned counsel furtheer submits that past service of petitioner as a daily wager from 1980 to 2003 has not beeen counted for calculating the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Thhe case of the petitioner is squaarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand annd others v. State of Punjab and others, 19888(5) SLR 25 and Division Beench judgment of this Court in Harbans Laal v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(3) SCT 362.

Learned counsel for the petitiooner further sought increment on qualifying the fire fighting course, as the similarly situated employeee Sh. Ram Narain Singh, who was appoinnted later and has been granted regular incrrement even prior to passing the qualifying test, whereas, thhe petitioner has been discriminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner furtheer submits thaat he would be satisfied if hiis case is considered under thhe Haryana Staate Litigation Policy, 2025.

On the other hand, learned Statte Counsel submits that he has no objection if the case of the petitioner is reeferred and considered under thhe Haryana Staate Litigation Policy.

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that thhe Governmennt of Haryana has notified the Haryana State Litigation Policyy, 2025, with the primary objective of ensuring an efficient and accountablle grievance-redressal framework within the administration, and with thhe overarching aim of reducing pendency before the Courts by curbing avoidable and repetitive litigation. Furthermore, in terms of the aforenoted Policy, an Employees’ Grievance Redressall Committee has been constituted for the speecific purpose of addressing and resolving employee-related grievances in a structured and time-bound manner.

In view of the above submissions, and in light of the judgmennt rendered byy this Court in CWP-2457-2025, titled as H.C. Sharma vs Statte of Haryana and others, decided on 30.07.2025, the present petition is disposed of in the following terms:

i. The Employees’ Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the Haryana State Littigation Policy, 2025 is hereby directed to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensivve representation and to consider and adjudicate upon the issuue raised herein. In the alternativee, the petitioner shall be at libertty to submit a detailed representation setting out his claim within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

ii. The Committee shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in terms of A.S. Randhawa casee (supra) and Kesar Chand casse (supra), after granting an oppoortunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, or from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner, as the case may be. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to thhe petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shalll be granted to him forthwith.

Pending miscellaneous appliccations, if any, shall also stand disposed of.